Reward Offered | Vandalism Reported at Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden

To check this alert, Claude Opus 5 (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

• Sourcepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The update names "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" as the responding and investigating issuer, with DPSS Dispatch as contact.

  Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: The notice names "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" as investigating and issuing.
  2. present: The issuing body is "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)", named repeatedly.
  3. present: "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" is named as investigating and issuing.
  4. present: "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" is named as responding and investigating.
  5. present: The University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security is named as the investigating sender.
  6. present: The University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security is identified as reporting and investigating.
  7. present: The sending authority is the "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)", named in full.
  8. present: "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" is identified as responding and investigating.
  9. present: The "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" is identified as investigating.
  10. present: DPSS, the University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security, names itself as investigator and sender.
  11. present: The issuer is named as the University of Michigan "Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)".
  12. present: It identifies "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" as the responding and investigating body.
  13. present: It names "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" as the investigating and issuing body.
  14. present: The Division of Public Safety and Security identifies itself as the responding and investigating agency.
  15. present: DPSS, the University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security, is identified as investigating and issuing.
  16. present: The University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security is named as the investigating and reporting body.
  17. present: "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" is named as investigating and issuing this.
  18. present: DPSS, the University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security, is named as investigator.
  19. present: The University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security is named as investigating and issuing.
  20. present: "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" is identified as the investigating issuer.
  21. present: The University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security is named as observing and investigating.
  22. present: The sender is "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)".
  23. present: The University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security is named as the investigating and reporting body.
  24. present: "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)" is named as the investigating sender.
  25. present: The issuer is "University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS)", which is investigating.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The offense is named as "an incident of malicious destruction of property (MDOP) at the Peony Garden", a specific crime rather than an unnamed disturbance.

  What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: It reports "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the garden, a specific offense.
  2. present: It reports "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of roughly 250 peony plants.
  3. present: It reports "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the peony plantings, a specific offense.
  4. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", a specific criminal act.
  5. present: It reports "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", that is, vandalism of the garden.
  6. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", specifically vandalism of the peony plants.
  7. present: It reports "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the garden, a specific offense.
  8. present: It reports "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the garden, a specific offense.
  9. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", a specific criminal act.
  10. present: The hazard is specified as vandalism, "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)" at the Peony Garden.
  11. present: It reports "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the garden, as the specific offense.
  12. present: The hazard is a named crime, "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)" at the Peony Garden.
  13. present: It reports "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the Peony Garden.
  14. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the Peony Garden, as the offense.
  15. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the peony plantings.
  16. present: It reports "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", a specific vandalism offense.
  17. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", that is vandalism, as the specific offense.
  18. present: It reports "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", a specific vandalism offense.
  19. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the garden.
  20. present: The hazard is named as "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the Peony Garden.
  21. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", a specific crime, namely vandalism of the garden.
  22. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", the cutting of peony flowers, as the offense.
  23. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the peony plants, a specific offense.
  24. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the peony garden.
  25. present: It names "malicious destruction of property (MDOP)", vandalism of the Peony Garden.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The site is the "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in "ANN ARBOR, MI", narrowed to "the north side of the garden".

  Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: The site is given as "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden", on the north side of the garden.
  2. present: The site is the "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor, north side of the garden.
  3. present: The place is "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor, and the garden's north side.
  4. present: The site is identified as "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor.
  5. present: The site is "the Peony Garden" at Nichols Arboretum in Ann Arbor.
  6. present: It places the incident at the "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor, MI.
  7. present: The place is given as "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor.
  8. present: It locates the incident at "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor, MI.
  9. present: The site is given as "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor.
  10. present: The site is given as the Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden in Ann Arbor, with the north side specified.
  11. present: The site is given as "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor.
  12. present: It locates the incident at "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor.
  13. present: The place is "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor, a named campus site.
  14. present: The place is given as the Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden in Ann Arbor, north side of the garden.
  15. present: The site is given as the Peony Garden at Nichols Arboretum in Ann Arbor.
  16. present: It locates the crime at "the Peony Garden" in Nichols Arboretum, Ann Arbor.
  17. present: The site is "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden", with the damage on "the north side of the garden".
  18. present: It locates the crime at the Peony Garden in Nichols Arboretum, Ann Arbor.
  19. present: The site is given as "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor.
  20. present: It places the incident at "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor, MI.
  21. present: It pinpoints the Peony Garden at Nichols Arboretum in Ann Arbor, on the north side of the garden.
  22. present: It places the crime at "the Peony Garden" in Nichols Arboretum, Ann Arbor.
  23. present: It locates the incident at "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor, on the garden's north side.
  24. present: The site is given as "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor.
  25. present: The place is the "Nichols Arboretum Peony Garden" in Ann Arbor, north side.
• Guidancepresent22/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 22 of 25. "Anyone with information is urged to contact DPSS Dispatch", the tip line or the tips email; three reads objected that a request for tips is not a protective action.

  The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: It urges "Anyone with information is urged to contact DPSS Dispatch", a concrete action for readers.
  2. absent: It only asks for tips to the dispatch and tip lines; no protective action is asked of readers.
  3. present: Readers are urged to "contact DPSS Dispatch", the confidential tip line, or email tips, an action asked of them.
  4. absent: The only request is to phone in information or tips, which is not a protective action for the reader.
  5. present: Anyone with information is urged to contact DPSS Dispatch, the tip line, or the tips email.
  6. present: Readers are urged to contact DPSS Dispatch, the confidential tip line, or the tips email with information.
  7. present: It urges anyone with information to contact DPSS Dispatch, the tip line or the tips email address.
  8. present: Readers with information are urged to contact DPSS Dispatch, the tip line or the tips email.
  9. present: It urges anyone with information to contact DPSS Dispatch or the confidential tip line.
  10. present: Readers are "urged to contact DPSS Dispatch", the tip line, or email tips about the case.
  11. present: It urges anyone with information to contact DPSS dispatch, the tip line or the tips email.
  12. present: Readers with information are urged to contact DPSS Dispatch, the tip line or the tips email.
  13. present: It urges anyone with information to contact DPSS Dispatch, the tip line, or the tips email.
  14. present: Anyone with information is urged to call DPSS dispatch, the tip line, or email the tips address.
  15. present: It urges anyone with information to contact DPSS Dispatch, the tip line, or the tips email.
  16. present: It urges anyone with information to contact DPSS Dispatch, the tip line, or the tips email.
  17. present: It urges anyone with information to "contact DPSS Dispatch" or the tip line, a requested action.
  18. present: Readers are urged to contact DPSS Dispatch, the tip line, or the tips email with information.
  19. present: Readers are urged to contact DPSS Dispatch, the tip line, or the tips email with information.
  20. present: It urges anyone with information to "contact DPSS Dispatch at (734) 763-1131" or the confidential tip line.
  21. present: It urges anyone with information to contact DPSS Dispatch, the confidential tip line or the tips email.
  22. absent: The only request is to phone in tips; no protective action is asked of recipients.
  23. present: Anyone with information "is urged to contact DPSS Dispatch", the confidential tip line, or the tips email.
  24. present: The community is urged to contact DPSS Dispatch, the tip line, or the listed tips email.
  25. present: Anyone with information is "urged to contact DPSS Dispatch" or the confidential tip line.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The report is pinned to "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025", matching the June 1 dateline on the update.

  When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: It states "At approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025", a precise time and date.
  2. present: It pins the report to "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  3. present: It states "At approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025", a precise date and time.
  4. present: It fixes the report at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  5. present: It fixes the report at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  6. present: It says the report came "At approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  7. present: It fixes the report at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  8. present: It pins the report to "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  9. present: It fixes the report at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  10. present: It reports the incident "At approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  11. present: The incident is timed at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  12. present: It fixes the report at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  13. present: The incident is timed "at approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  14. present: It fixes the report at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  15. present: The incident is timed "at approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  16. present: The incident is timed "at approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  17. present: It states "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025", a precise time and date.
  18. present: It fixes the report at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  19. present: It records "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025" as the report time.
  20. present: The report time is given as "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  21. present: The incident is timed at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  22. present: It states "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025" as the report time.
  23. present: It gives "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025" as the report time.
  24. present: It fixes the report at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
  25. present: It fixes the report at "approximately 6:14 a.m. on June 1, 2025".
• Impactpresent23/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 23 of 25. The loss is quantified: "roughly 250 peony plants", about a third of the garden's 800, "had most of their flowers cut off"; two reads held that past damage is not forward risk.

  What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. absent: Damage already done is counted, but nothing tells readers what continuing risk they face or how serious it is.
  2. absent: Loss of flowers is described as fact, with no statement of danger or severity to the community.
  3. present: It quantifies the damage: "roughly 250 peony plants", about a third of 800, with most flowers cut off.
  4. present: The damage is quantified: roughly 250 of 800 peony plants "had most of their flowers cut off".
  5. present: It quantifies the damage: about 250 of the garden's 800 peony plants lost most of their flowers.
  6. present: It quantifies the damage: roughly 250 plants, about a third of the garden, had "most of their flowers cut off".
  7. present: It quantifies the damage: roughly 250 plants, about one third of the garden's 800, had their flowers cut off.
  8. present: It quantifies the damage: "roughly 250 peony plants" lost most of their flowers, about a third of the garden.
  9. present: It quantifies the damage: "roughly 250 peony plants ... had most of their flowers cut off".
  10. present: It quantifies the damage: roughly 250 of 800 plants "had most of their flowers cut off".
  11. present: It quantifies the damage: roughly 250 plants, a third of the garden, had most flowers cut off.
  12. present: It quantifies the damage: roughly 250 plants, about a third of the garden, had their flowers cut off.
  13. present: It quantifies the damage: about 250 of 800 plants lost most of their flowers, stating the harm done.
  14. present: It quantifies the harm: about 250 of the garden's 800 peony plants had most flowers cut off.
  15. present: It quantifies the damage done: roughly 250 plants, a third of the garden, had flowers cut off.
  16. present: It quantifies the damage: about 250 of 800 peony plants had most of their flowers cut off.
  17. present: It quantifies the damage: "roughly 250 peony plants", about a third of the garden, lost most of their flowers.
  18. present: It quantifies the damage: roughly 250 plants, one third of the garden, had flowers cut off.
  19. present: It quantifies the damage: "roughly 250 peony plants", about a third of the garden, had their flowers cut off.
  20. present: It quantifies the damage: "roughly 250 peony plants, or about one-third of the garden's 800", had flowers cut off.
  21. present: It quantifies the damage: about 250 plants, one third of the garden, had most of their flowers cut off.
  22. present: It quantifies the damage: about 250 plants, one third of the garden's 800, had most flowers cut off.
  23. present: It quantifies the damage: roughly 250 of 800 peony plants lost most of their flowers, stating the harm done.
  24. present: It quantifies the damage: roughly 250 plants, a third of the garden, had flowers cut off.
  25. present: It quantifies the damage: roughly 250 plants, about one third of the garden, had flowers cut off.